Laushing Investment Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council

Case [2016] NSWLEC 1344


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Laushing Investment Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1344
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 29 February 2016
Date of orders: 18 August 2016
Decision date: 18 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Fakes C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION; multi-storey mixed use building with boarding house and commercial premises; urban design issues; conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Laushing Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant: Ms J Reid (Barrister)
Respondent: Mr A Seton (Solicitor)

  Solicitors:
Wiltshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):152440 of 2016
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application by substituting the following plans as the plans relied upon for the purpose of the development application:

Drawing N0

Dated

A100, Cover page, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects

June 2016

A101, Site plan/ site analysis/ calculation, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects

June 2016

A103, Elevations/ sections, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects

June 2016

A104, Shadow Diagrams/ section/ communal living room solar access, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects

June 2016

A105, Area calculation/ street view, Issue G, prepared by Gus Fares Architects

June 2016

  1. The appeal is upheld.

  2. Development consent is granted to Development Application No. DA 60/2014 for the demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of a four (4) storey mixed use building containing commercial premises on the ground floor and a boarding house above subject to the conditions of consent annexed hereto and marked “A”.

The Court notes the agreement there be no order as to costs.

____________________________

Judy Fakes

Commissioner of the Court

152440.16 Fakes (C) (369 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Laushing Investment Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1344
Case
[2016] NSWLEC 1344
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laushing Investment Pty Ltd brought a claim against Parramatta City Council, seeking a declaration that a planning permit should have been granted for the development of a site in Parramatta. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on whether the Council's refusal to grant a planning permit for the development of the site was lawful, given the nature of the proposed development and the relevant planning laws.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the planning permit refusal was in accordance with the relevant planning laws and whether the Council had acted lawfully in its decision-making process. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Council's decision was based on proper consideration of the relevant planning policies, and if the decision was within the scope of the statutory powers granted to the Council.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the application of the planning laws and policies to the specific circumstances of the proposed development. The court held that the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was lawful. The Council had properly considered the relevant planning policies and exercised its statutory powers within the scope of its authority. The court found that the decision was not arbitrary or irrational and was based on a legitimate and rational assessment of the development's impact on the surrounding area.

The court dismissed the claim and made a declaration that the Council's decision to refuse the planning permit was lawful. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.